Is it the number 7 correct on the shapeshifting one?
wrong title. Why start with a false dichotomy. What makes that title author think or want to oppose the 2. It is not like one is instantly having perfect patterns popping up in their wet brain... Should I read more to discover it was only a starter proposition, that there might be progress of thought within? It is my hope. Also, your pace of blogs, is preventing me from thinking about chess... :) my other projects.. I find chess community has been lagging with respect to cognitive sciences... TFML, having been not digested well. It is a bit like patterns fall from the sky, one day. and boom you are an expert.. but with life span hard work, so you really earn your areola. So, I find all you propose should have been around a while back, and kind of are (notice the excellent English) important to read so I would both update myself, and have references later to use.
I should have read the first paragraph. I guess one has to read the room first to understand the title point. Like MFTL might have been in a context where it was a surprise. Chess and magic bullet explanations... Big swings.
me? you mean me? Well, I play correspondance, so I can take notes about my own thinking. I even have discussion games live about it and my opponent does as well, and we recognize how more imaginative the other has been after each other non-best move. But I have hoarded all my thinking, and lichess makes it now possible seamlessly while thinking. I also use Lichess Tools, to make that even easier, so I can keep thinking chess and not micromanagement). But you were not really asking me, were you? It was a "rhetorical" question of sort. LOL. ok I hope this is my last circumstantial post. Got to make room of others.. Good blog. can't wait to have read it all.
@whitewolf94 said in #2:
> Is it the number 7 correct on the shapeshifting one?
No, I'm afraid not - happy to spoil the answer if you like, but I'll hold off for now in case you want to keep thinking about it.
> Is it the number 7 correct on the shapeshifting one?
No, I'm afraid not - happy to spoil the answer if you like, but I'll hold off for now in case you want to keep thinking about it.
Good that you backreference to related parts of your previous posts. This makes a robust offering. And I appreciate the opportunity to check what I might have skipped in vain (or what not in my internal debate while reading, which is often why my reading skips....). Now seeing that you have put some stuff before, I would want to read. The spatial cognition being our ambient cognition. We might even map things not spatial into spatial (I know I do with linguistic logic, and have done all throughout my past mathematical education, even proof flow target, I would first make spatial projections of the linguistic logical chunks definitions and theorem phrases or chunk, theorems meaning any construction of new statements that augment the "knowledge", when having cleverly chosen definitions to make it so, and vice versa... some pulling bootstrap stuff. don't ask).
I may have overinterpreted. Great stuff.. All of it. Gets even better with iterations. I think the hypertext of the web, was a promising human adaptation step for how machine can help us.
I may have overinterpreted. Great stuff.. All of it. Gets even better with iterations. I think the hypertext of the web, was a promising human adaptation step for how machine can help us.
I just want to say that I find these/your kind of blog posts quite interesting and also enjoy reading them. I would like to know more of what conclusions you find in your research, thanks and keep it up.
@ACSL said in #8:
> I just want to say that I find these/your kind of blog posts quite interesting and also enjoy reading them. I would like to know more of what conclusions you find in your research, thanks and keep it up.
Thank you for reading and for the encouragement! There should be more posts in the future, though I may leave a little bit more of a break between this one and the next to catch up on some reading.
> I just want to say that I find these/your kind of blog posts quite interesting and also enjoy reading them. I would like to know more of what conclusions you find in your research, thanks and keep it up.
Thank you for reading and for the encouragement! There should be more posts in the future, though I may leave a little bit more of a break between this one and the next to catch up on some reading.
@NDpatzer said in #6:
> No, I'm afraid not - happy to spoil the answer if you like, but I'll hold off for now in case you want to keep thinking about it.
if its not 5 as well please spoil it
> No, I'm afraid not - happy to spoil the answer if you like, but I'll hold off for now in case you want to keep thinking about it.
if its not 5 as well please spoil it